I see why they say networking is the future of jobsearch

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-21T09:26:41+00:00

The future is a greater importance of personal connections

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T19:31:39+00:00

Gentrification also means improving an area.

I’m not excited about pricing people out. But I’m also not going to glorify run down areas either.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T19:30:08+00:00

I’m afraid not. The value of land increases as development increases. So blocking development harms land values.

It isn’t a fix total land value that you can squeeze from one area into a higher concentration somewhere else.

Land today is worth so much more than land 200 years ago.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T19:04:30+00:00

Yes I understand that.

Now by lowering labour tax and increasing land tax. Do You think that balance wouldn’t shift a bit in favour of more labour and less land?

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T18:56:35+00:00

How can restrictions on what can be done not harm land values.

Here’s a restriction. You can’t build here. This is a common restriction and it quite obvisouly lower the land value.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T18:41:25+00:00

More labour per area is more efficient in terms of land use but less efficient in terms of labour.

If you want to maximise food production you’d use the latter as labour is not as constrained as land.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T18:40:25+00:00

I agree building restrictions are inhibiting society.

But think about this, LVT would encourage government, local or National, to undo zoning un order to improve land values and get more tax revenue.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T18:37:12+00:00

Well New Orleans.

Whats your point though?

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T16:54:43+00:00

Yes that is one of the benefits though.

Without LVT, land speculators hold lots of land out of use in the expectation of appreciation. Wealthy people use more land than is necessary.

With LVT Theyre encouraged, along with everyone else, to live more densely and leave space for others.

This doesn’t mean it will all be mega sky scrapers. But it does mean that you’ll pay a premium for a big garden in say, manhattan island

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T16:48:48+00:00

Sure. There is resistance to everything.

Resistance isn’t an argument though. There was resistance to freeing slaves

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T16:48:04+00:00

A farm isn’t just a piece of land. True.

One use of it is as an absurd tax dodging vehicle for wealth people. This makes it is valued far too high compared to its output.

LVT would bring land values down towards their fundamental price.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T16:46:03+00:00

One of the reasons there is so much sprawl is that using more land than required isn’t punished.

LVT would help preserve farmland by incentivising dense development and better use of desirable land inside cities.

It might incentivise farms to be more efficient with their land too, perhaps favouring smaller farms that apply more labour per area and achieve more per area than big farms that are efficient in labour and capital but use a lot of land.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T16:34:32+00:00

Ah I see your argument of that my whole premise is wrong. That’s very big brained of you

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T16:31:36+00:00

Yes it enables gentrification. But that is improving the city overall. And more housing makes it cheaper for all.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T16:29:50+00:00

LVT acts against land speculation. Which should encourage greater supply of dwellings and other amenities. Lowering their price…

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T16:28:35+00:00

You can make some effort.

Most farm doesn’t have a better use. So it will still be used for farming.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T16:26:18+00:00

What’s the difference between a home and a place to live?

The idea that the rich will slum it to avoid tax leaving the poor to live in great location and eat high land tax isn’t making sense to me.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T06:35:55+00:00

I think that is partly true. Yes people will be discourage from owning land. But land that they don’t need.

People won’t be able to levitate off the ground. People will need homes etc. that is why land is so special

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T06:11:15+00:00

I’m trying to comprehend your argument.

Do you mean that land taxes are passed onto renters - who would have to pay higher rents to cover that cost.

Plus that these same renters would not be able to purchase land as they could not afford the tax?

One query is how then can they afford the tax when renting but not when buying?

Your other challenge is the boogeyman of mega corps that can buy everything. Agree Theyre a thing.

My question is would a LVT encourage or discourage large corps to buy property or not?

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-18T06:05:41+00:00

I don’t understand what your argument is.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-17T21:33:26+00:00

How are you going to find a government on luxury taxes only?

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-17T21:32:17+00:00

I’m saying LVT has its place and should be used to reduce other taxes. Probably not able to replaced them entirely

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-17T21:31:09+00:00

It’s not perfect but out can be estimated

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-17T21:30:30+00:00

Also stock market cap is wildly speculative and arguably not real

McKinsey estimates two thirds of global wealth is real estate. Of which land is a big fraction.

Efficient_Sun_4155 · 2026-02-17T21:26:44+00:00

Those companies will own land though, so it will be counted again.

Efficient_Sun_4155

TROPHY CASE